Do you believe in Evan Jager?
People who want to believe in it will find this to be "meaningless". People who don't want to believe in it will see this as yet another piece of evidence against the idea.
I've always wondered about the distribution of monitoring stations is relative to populated areas. How many are close to cities?
And yet, interestingly none of the letter's 49 signatories are climate scientists.
You cannot see this for what it is? Seriously?
If any of these 49 folks have any valid criticism of the science the thing to do is perform serious studies and publish scientific results. Instead, a grand total of 49 people, (among perhaps 50,000 current or former NASA employees - a grand total of 0.1%) signed this letter, while 99.9% did not.
Seriously?
Hey, when you can't dispute the science, why not start a petition?
Seriously?
I don't give a shi t what astronauts or engineers think about climate change. That's like asking my doctor for an opinion on my car's transmission.
And yet, interestingly none of the letter's 49 signatories are climate scientists.
You cannot see this for what it is? Seriously?
If any of these 49 folks have any valid criticism of the science the thing to do is perform serious studies and publish scientific results. Instead, a grand total of 49 people, (among perhaps 50,000 current or former NASA employees - a grand total of 0.1%) signed this letter, while 99.9% did not.
Seriously?
Hey, when you can't dispute the science, why not start a petition?
Seriously?
I don't give a shi t what astronauts or engineers think about climate change. That's like asking my doctor for an opinion on my car's transmission.
Thank you to you both. You restored a little bit of my hope for humanity.
I didn't know people still believed in this.
But people still believe in the JFK conspiracy theory ~50 years after the fact, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this conspiracy theory is still around too.
I suppose we will have to wait for this one to go away until everyone thinks there is another ice age coming.
Remember all those scientists and engineers who told us nine eleven was an inside job? Like the other poster said, I don't ask my doctor about my car's transmission.
Amazing hand-waving going on in this thread. Just how smart does one have to be, whether an astronaut or construction worker, to realize that actual, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence stands at odds with Nasa's position? This is typical ad-hominem tactics of those who can't defend their position.
Does it take a climate scientist to notice when someone is:
"neglecting empirical evidence"?
"relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate"?
Does it take a climate scientist to notice when someone fails to:
"make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change"?
Does it take a climate scientist to insist that others refrain from:
"including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites"?
Apparently many now believe that climate scientists are the only reliable people left in the world. Nobody else is honest or knows a damn thing they are talking about. Only a climate scientist can understand a peer reviewed paper. Only a climate scientist can make a judgment as to whether a model is really flawed or not. Only a climate scientist can make precise predictions about the future climate without evidence to back them up, even if it is at odds with the actual evidence we do have.
Lookout, Jesus. Suddenly walking on water isn't all that impressive anymore.
People! It doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that what climate scientists say is at odds with what other empirical evidence indicates. It only takes a little reading comprehension . . . and perhaps just a bit of healthy skepticism.
But if you insist on this lame line of defense, well . . . why are you commenting on a news article when you are (presumably) not even a journalist?
What empricial evidence? We know that increased CO2 contributes to raising temperatures in a system, and we know that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
You appear to be implying that climate scientists are making up the evidence for man made climate change. Any reasonable excuse as to why they would do this? I would frankly trust the experts, who after all, know best, rather than attacking them with childish conspiracy theories over their impartiality.
Great, so wrote:
What empricial evidence?
I'm not entirely sure you understood what I meant. The article that is linked to above says that these "cranks" are citing empirical evidence that is being treated too lightly, but if it weren't, that it would seem to have to dampen the high confidence that Nasa has of manmade global warming.
If you did understand what I meant, then your question proves the point; people, such as yourself, don't know that such contradictory evidence exists because the influential circle(s) of experts (so touted) are downplaying it.
Great, so wrote:
I would frankly trust the experts, who after all, know best,
LOL, I actually laughed out loud at this statement.
"experts" run our country. And america is still in the sh!tter. People are elected to congress/government positions because people think they are "experts." Yet congress's approval rate is at an all time low (or close). Bush went to Yale. Bill Oreilly attended Harvard. And look at those clowns. High education doesn't necessarily say anything else about you.
If you actually think that any of these "climate expert" clowns know jack sh!t about what is going to happen or what everything will be like in the year 2050, then you're just an ignorant sheep who falls for the latest conspiracy theory.
As people have mentioned many times before, what ever happened to the ice age that was coming back in the 70s? It is 50 years later. Why isn't the earth frozen over now?
And for the same reasons, don't be surprised when the climate is exactly the same in 2050, or even colder.
As a natural skeptic (not to say nay-sayer), I came to this whole topic with a, well, skeptical view.
I am now convinced that the climate is changing (duh--what else does it do?); that the planet is indeed getting warmer overall, over time; and that human activity is playing a role in the change, though perhaps not as large a role as some seem to think.
After similar processes of looking at both sides and as much evidence as possible, I also think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone; that the evolution of life on Earth is a scientific fact; and that (most) recycling, particularly the recycling of paper, is useless at best and probably a net negative.
In other words, my judgments on various controversies are hard to peg with a single convenient label. I do *tend*, however, to give added weight to the opinions of people whose life work has been in a particular area of science. When NASA's *climate scientists* sign a similar petition, I'll probably consider it more seriously.
Brent. wrote:
Amazing hand-waving going on in this thread. Just how smart does one have to be, whether an astronaut or construction worker, to realize that actual, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence stands at odds with Nasa's position? This is typical ad-hominem tactics of those who can't defend their position.
Does it take a climate scientist to notice when someone is:
"neglecting empirical evidence"?
"relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate"?
Does it take a climate scientist to notice when someone fails to:
"make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change"?
Does it take a climate scientist to insist that others refrain from:
"including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites"?
Apparently many now believe that climate scientists are the only reliable people left in the world. Nobody else is honest or knows a damn thing they are talking about. Only a climate scientist can understand a peer reviewed paper. Only a climate scientist can make a judgment as to whether a model is really flawed or not. Only a climate scientist can make precise predictions about the future climate without evidence to back them up, even if it is at odds with the actual evidence we do have.
Lookout, Jesus. Suddenly walking on water isn't all that impressive anymore.
People! It doesn't take a climate scientist to realize that what climate scientists say is at odds with what other empirical evidence indicates. It only takes a little reading comprehension . . . and perhaps just a bit of healthy skepticism.
But if you insist on this lame line of defense, well . . . why are you commenting on a news article when you are (presumably) not even a journalist?
If that's the case then they're free to publish a review or study stating their point of view. Why haven't they done this?
Mr. Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry, having served in various senior management roles with The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration and production company, including President, Chief Operating Officer and, from 1989 until its acquisition by Burlington Resources, Inc. in 1997, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Steward subsequently served as Vice Chairman of Burlington Resources, a publicly traded oil and gas exploration, production and development company, until his retirement in 2000. Mr. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Steward is also currently an author-partner of Sugar Busters, LLC, a provider of seminars, books and products related to helping people follow a healthy and nutritious lifestyle, and Chairman of the non-profit corporations Plants Need CO2 and CO2 Is Green, providers of information related to carbon dioxide?s impact on the global climate and the plant and animal kingdoms.
experts are paid idiots wrote:
"experts" run our country. And america is still in the sh!tter. People are elected to congress/government positions because people think they are "experts." Yet congress's approval rate is at an all time low (or close). Bush went to Yale. Bill Oreilly attended Harvard. And look at those clowns. High education doesn't necessarily say anything else about you.
If you actually think that any of these "climate expert" clowns know jack sh!t about what is going to happen or what everything will be like in the year 2050, then you're just an ignorant sheep who falls for the latest conspiracy theory.
As people have mentioned many times before, what ever happened to the ice age that was coming back in the 70s? It is 50 years later. Why isn't the earth frozen over now?
And for the same reasons, don't be surprised when the climate is exactly the same in 2050, or even colder.
So, why should we listen to your expertise on the state of expertise in America? How do you know you aren't an ignorant sheep just following a different set of "experts?"
These aren't hypothetical questions. The standard way of determining the difference between a true opinion and baloney is considering which opinion has evidence supporting it. The climate scientists have the weight of scientific method; this method is what grants their discourse authority. Your discourse relies on hyperbole, curse words, and hostility. These are actually pretty clear indicators of emotionally grounded, hastily produced, and blatantly false speech.
The thing about global warming is that it is not true. I feel bad for all the muppets who buy into it and think they are superior.
deleuze wrote:
So, why should we listen to your expertise on the state of expertise in America? How do you know you aren't an ignorant sheep just following a different set of "experts?"
These aren't hypothetical questions. The standard way of determining the difference between a true opinion and baloney is considering which opinion has evidence supporting it. The climate scientists have the weight of scientific method; this method is what grants their discourse authority. Your discourse relies on hyperbole, curse words, and hostility. These are actually pretty clear indicators of emotionally grounded, hastily produced, and blatantly false speech.
I am not saying listen to me necessarily, but there are people out there who hear "by 2050 blah blah blah will happen" and they actually believe that by 2050, or whatever other year decades in the future they're talking about, that blah blah blah will actually happen. In the 70s, people thought science was advancing, and back then the science was telling us we were entering an ice age. Now, people think we have advanced science (or so we think--difficult to say since we don't actually know its limits) and the "science" (or the science that is published to the public) is saying the earth is warming. We hear reports like "by year 2XXX all the ice caps will be melted and there will be X, Y, and Z happening yada yada yada.." And people read this and legitimately think that by year 2XXX, all of that will be happening and we have to act NOW and if you choose not to buy into the same conspiracy, you are labelled names and said to hate the environment, etc.
Maybe the planet is actually warming a little. Maybe not. I am not denying it one way or another. The only thing we can guarantee by year 2050, or whatever year people think all the polar ice caps will melt and kill us, is that there will be other, more attractive conspiracy theories come along, and this one will die out.
Don't listen to me, listen to common sense. The earth is millions (billions?) of years old. You think suddenly humans are going to drive cars around for 100 of them and destroy the whole planet? Please think rationally.
From your liberal use of "blah blah blah" and "XXX" and complete absence of concrete citations, I can only conclude that you either don't know or are unable to articulate what the experts are saying, yet you're damn sure they're wrong about it.
Rational thinking indeed.
experts are paid idiots wrote:
Don't listen to me, listen to common sense. The earth is millions (billions?) of years old. You think suddenly humans are going to drive cars around for 100 of them and destroy the whole planet? Please think rationally.
Nobody thinks we're going to destroy the whole planet, only that we're going to increase the frequency and severity of a lot of nasty weather events, change agricultural patterns on earth, and impair water supplies that people depend upon. It will probably prove a minor inconvenience to the privileged of us who can sit at our computers in temperate climates and discuss it from temperature controlled homes, but it's probably going to be very bad for millions of people around the world who currently have tenuous access to adequate food and water.